1) good simple creationists sources
2) the stuff in the science class may openly contradict this, and what should i tell him?
3) books that would help me get better at the apologetic side of this, i need them.

we do the daily bread. i will let him ask the questions but with genesis i have to push the yec view as the sciences will deny this and sadly the church at times(though none that i would take him too).

Here are two more from my bookshelf: (I knew there were 3 Ruth Beechick books)

World History Made Simple: Matching History with the Bible. This was is really great! It includes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the development of the great rift in context with that area of Africa being fertile before that, the exodus, and more.

Dinosaurs Unleashed by Kyle Butt and Eric Lyons. I love this book. I am a dinosaur geek, especially as related to YEC and have read a lot of books involving this. This one is the best. It includes artwork depicting dinosaurs, flood legends, and the likely reason for extinction (the same as all other animals, duh).

And that basically no atheistic evolutionist has counter it or even made a response in there. They probably will now just to prove me wrong but then again then they would have to come up with an answer as well.

And that basically no atheistic evolutionist has counter it or even made a response in there. They probably will now just to prove me wrong but then again then they would have to come up with an answer as well.

I would caution you on giving him too much confidence when atheists haven't formed a response yet, since they always have responses eventually. It was a huge test for my faith in the literal history of the Bible when I believed that certain evidence was beyond the response of an atheist, only to have my confidence knocked down when I realized they had a response to my arguement. I thought the official position on this discovery is that it changes their bias of the rate of tissue decay (a bit limp yes, but it is enough to preserve their bias). Anyway, I would argue its best to give him realistic expectations. They will always come up with a response because they do not want to be under God's authority;

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Ephesians 6:12

I would caution you on giving him too much confidence when atheists haven't formed a response yet, since they always have responses eventually. It was a huge test for my faith in the literal history of the Bible when I believed that certain evidence was beyond the response of an atheist, only to have my confidence knocked down when I realized they had a response to my arguement. I thought the official position on this discovery is that it changes their bias of the rate of tissue decay (a bit limp yes, but it is enough to preserve their bias). Anyway, I would argue its best to give him realistic expectations. They will always come up with a response because they do not want to be under God's authority;

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Ephesians 6:12

Help him build his faith on the rock of Jesus Christ!

I do agree except on this evidence they could never show or explain why without a lame excuse or cop out because other areas of science prove that these things will not last that long of a period of time. What he needs to learn is that "words" don't make new realities and truth. Which is all that they will have, Besides, the evidence is empirical so that the only way they can debunk this is to come up with more empirical evidence against it or that explains it away. And since there is really very little "real empirical" evidence that exists for evolution, meeting that criteria is next to impossible.

Example: How do you knock down observable repeatable empirical evidence for something? Words or more observable repeatable evidence? Words will be all that they have. Why? Because the one escape goat for them was the conditions (moist or dry) the fossil existed in that had this evidence. But since they have taken several types of fossils found in different areas and "all" had the same results that was quickly squashed. And the only other excuse would be the thickness of the bone as protection for this to exist. Problem is they found the same results in bird fossils which have very thin bones. So the only thing left is words, opinions, etc...

They cannot claim that the discoverer of this evidence was a creationist that made this up. Or that some how she was able to carve it, fake it, or what ever. The only thing they can do, which they have already tried, is to attack her. disown her, shun her. She having to go to one person that would allow her to do her tests shows everyone knew that there was a possibility that this could be repeated and did not want that to happen. It's ironic that evolutionists will claim they want truth but yet when that truth happens to be something that can disprove their believe in atheism they want nothing to do with it. Which proves that both evolutionism and atheism are nothing more than an idea based in conformism.

Yes it is strange how Gentry was getting his work peer reviewed until scientists realized that it had implications that undermined the geologic time scale. Even stranger how, when an evolutionist unwittingly stumbles upon another tough issue for evolution, they are quick to dissasociate it from that problem. Seems more like a dog and pony show than science.

Yes it is strange how Gentry was getting his work peer reviewed until scientists realized that it had implications that undermined the geologic time scale. Even stranger how, when an evolutionist unwittingly stumbles upon another tough issue for evolution, they are quick to dissasociate it from that problem. Seems more like a dog and pony show than science.

Actually evolution is being sold more than it's being proven. They sell their idea like a used car saleman would sell you a used car. Are you going to buy it if he tells you that a teenager frove it and burned the back tires off it? Or other bad things? Of course not. He sells you the car by "hiding these fact in favor of better ones".

And here is what happens to most buyers. If they are really attached to the car and do not like admitting to making a mistake in buying it, they will make excuses covering for themselves that they made the right decision regardless of how many times that car gives them trouble.

And this is the problem with a lot of evolutioinists out there. They bought into the idea, are unwilling to admit they were even the slightest bit wrong, so they will cover for the theory to save face. This is why regardless of what you say or show most evolutionists on why evolution is wrong, they want listen. And how you tell you are debating one of these is when they will not even consider what you say. It's like what you say has zero bearings.on the debate and is also the reason the will refuse to address certain things a creationist will bring up.

To address the issue means they have to face the reality of that issue. So because they can never even ponder the possibility of being wrong that's not going to happen. We have actually banned evolutionists from this forum for that. Because when they only address what they want to and ignore more than 50% of what the creationist brings up but require the creationist to address 100% of what they bring up, it's a waste of everyone's time debating them. So we don;t allow that which makes the debate here on level ground and they hate being in level ground with a creationist. And this is also why most evolutionists here don't last long. They can only stand debating creationists on level ground for so long then get fed up and start breaking the rules in their frustration.

,,,And here is what happens to most buyers. If they are really attached to the car and do not like admitting to making a mistake in buying it, they will make excuses covering for themselves that they made the right decision regardless of how many times that car gives them trouble.

And this is the problem with a lot of evolutioinists out there. They bought into the idea, are unwilling to admit they were even the slightest bit wrong, ...

That's true. Many people have a problem admitting they were mislead. Realizing that they might be ridiculed, they resort to ridicule themselves:http://www.durangobi...reationism.htmlDefensive mechanism?(One could make a discussion on that one on its own)